Military spending, raise or lower?

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Either you read too fast or don't understand my use of the term local. We have bases proximate to everywhere. Saudi for instance, England lots of places. The carriers groups to me are money gobbling bird barges. No need to introduce our people into harms way when we could do as I say above. I think 2 carrier groups are enough to insure the "bully factor" (Big guy on the block) (Are you scared yet?). My response was pithy but, not ignorant. IMO... Just for show means Just for show. No real purpose if there is a more effective way to deliver munitions or whatever and I think there is.

See? The explanation is all the difference.

The problem with having a couple or three battlegroups is that a) you have no reserve, and b) they take forever to arrive on station negating their effectiveness of being present and intimidating on a moment's notice. We cannot predict with any certainty where the next crisis might arise -- Algeria? North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? India? Chile? South Africa? The only way we ensure timely response to a crisis is by having battlegroups stationed around the world.

You say on one hand that we should not have bases overseas and should instead launch missiles from American soil to handle our problems. Yet, on the other, you want to cut the best choice we have for "mobile basing" in the form of a US Navy carrier battlegroup or in the form of an amphibious ready group of Marines (or combination thereof). Which is it? Moving troops, aircraft, and munitions from CONUS is a time consuming process, as the lead-in to Desert Storm and to OIF proved. What did we have on station nearly immediately? A few carriers and assorted support vessels.

Power projection is key. The Navy is arguably the best in that regard because of what they can move around on the water (or under or over the water) without any consideration to basing rights or host country restrictions.

But, I didn't say we shouldn't have bases overseas to the contrary. I don't say launch from the US, I want to have bases every where as we do. Spend the $ to produce effective tech to obviate the need to send plane in. I see no difference between dropping a smart bomb and launching a smarter missle. Yes I want to cut the fleet because it costs more than my notion. All right keep the subs they serve multi purpose duty but, the bird farms and the aircraft aboard are too expensive. B52's fly near 600knts can reach anywhere faster than a Carrier can even if but 1000 miles away. We are in the techno age. I suggest we need not put anyone in harms way until all the danger is past and then send in the army.. The marines are always the first in and I want them safe.

Ahh CONUS is not a missle based something it be continental US... clears that up for me..

My bigger point is, however, Military earn so little, compared to the job. We are in a this or that economic reality, it seems and I say with all the smarts in DOD and where I worked for awhile (SAIC) the way to go is techno then the march in and occupy after the danger passes... those unmanned drones were wonderfull, I thought. About 100 at each local and the effect of intel and targeting would go up greatly.

I think my way is faster cheaper and safer... our objective is to destroy something during an invasion let it be them and our munitions.

Sorry I am a bit cryptic at times... can't type as fast as I think.. so I'm always catching up.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Either you read too fast or don't understand my use of the term local. We have bases proximate to everywhere. Saudi for instance, England lots of places. The carriers groups to me are money gobbling bird barges. No need to introduce our people into harms way when we could do as I say above. I think 2 carrier groups are enough to insure the "bully factor" (Big guy on the block) (Are you scared yet?). My response was pithy but, not ignorant. IMO... Just for show means Just for show. No real purpose if there is a more effective way to deliver munitions or whatever and I think there is.

by treaty we can't have land based intermediate range missiles. not to mention that missles are much more expensive than dropping bombs from an airplane off a carrier. plus the response time to airstrike calls is faster using the airplane. not to mention that a missle can't provide air cover for infantry taking ground.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1
B52's fly near 600knts can reach anywhere faster than a Carrier can even if but 1000 miles away.

a B-52 flying halfway around the world takes half a day to reach its target, half a day to come back, and then has to be in maintenence for quite a while before it can fly again. a carrier might take a couple days to reach its launch area, but once its on station its aircraft can be where they need to be in minutes and can loiter a bit over the battlefield.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I was in the forth grade I was thinking up ways to destroy whole cities.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HJD1
B52's fly near 600knts can reach anywhere faster than a Carrier can even if but 1000 miles away.

a B-52 flying halfway around the world takes half a day to reach its target, half a day to come back, and then has to be in maintenence for quite a while before it can fly again. a carrier might take a couple days to reach its launch area, but once its on station its aircraft can be where they need to be in minutes and can loiter a bit over the battlefield.

well if the fleet is in Kansas it won't get there either... Localize them more (bombers missles etc) England and other friendlies.
By treaty... when do we subscribe to treaty when we want something done... England Russia and some of our other buddies ought to play a role too. But if I'm all wet here ok... but, this or that... not enough this and the job don't get done... Lives are at stake and I'd rather not see them lost if a buck or two or a million is involved. what is the value of an American... to me alot. and to you alot I'm sure.. lets find a way to effect foreign policy more techno than grunt.. How I'm not sure.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When I was in the forth grade I was thinking up ways to destroy whole cities.

I ran outside but could not see if the other side of the moon was facing me... I'd bet is was though

 

[LeadMagnet]

Lives are at stake and I'd rather not see them lost if a buck or two or a million is involved. what is the value of an American... to me alot. and to you alot I'm sure.. lets find a way to effect foreign policy more techno than grunt.. How I'm not sure.

Amen


I also do not want the US being the gloabl bad guy or world cop (depending on your point of view) I just whis we could play nicely with others (obviously over simplified)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1

well if the fleet is in Kansas it won't get there either... Localize them more (bombers missles etc) England and other friendlies.
By treaty... when do we subscribe to treaty when we want something done... England Russia and some of our other buddies ought to play a role too. But if I'm all wet here ok... but, this or that... not enough this and the job don't get done... Lives are at stake and I'd rather not see them lost if a buck or two or a million is involved. what is the value of an American... to me alot. and to you alot I'm sure.. lets find a way to effect foreign policy more techno than grunt.. How I'm not sure.

the fleet isn't in kansas but if you cut it down to carrier groups then one of them is gonna be damn close at all times. we don't have enough airframes to localize, plus spreading parts of your forces all over when they don't need to be is just asking for logistics problems. lives are at stake and you're saying lower the defense budget? and lastly, russia isn't one of our "buddies."

 

[LeadMagnet]

to have just 2 active and ready carrier groups at all times it takes a minimum of 7 groups. These groups go on 1 six month deployment every 18 months, when they return the ship/crew needs extensive rework/rest. At any one time 1 of those carriers would be needing a complete overhaul in dry docks.

When I was in during 86 to 92 the Navy strived to have 14 carrier battle groups just to maintain 3 or 4 active groups our at sea.

During Gulf War 1 we had 4 active carrier groups in the Persian Gulf at the same time, 3 launching strikes and one replentishing. It really beat the hell out of the groups since many of them needed to stay out past the 6 month marker, to fight and other that were at the pier or sea trials needed to be called out early to sail to the gulf.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to see a military that can rebuild the world. We can set all our greatest minds to designing a world according to the best of everything we know, from the psychological health of our children to the industrialization of space. That would be some war, one worth dying for maybe.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HJD1

well if the fleet is in Kansas it won't get there either... Localize them more (bombers missles etc) England and other friendlies.
By treaty... when do we subscribe to treaty when we want something done... England Russia and some of our other buddies ought to play a role too. But if I'm all wet here ok... but, this or that... not enough this and the job don't get done... Lives are at stake and I'd rather not see them lost if a buck or two or a million is involved. what is the value of an American... to me alot. and to you alot I'm sure.. lets find a way to effect foreign policy more techno than grunt.. How I'm not sure.

the fleet isn't in kansas but if you cut it down to carrier groups then one of them is gonna be damn close at all times. we don't have enough airframes to localize, plus spreading parts of your forces all over when they don't need to be is just asking for logistics problems. lives are at stake and you're saying lower the defense budget? and lastly, russia isn't one of our "buddies."

I'm not saying cut the budget... I'm saying we can't afford everything we could use so it becomes a this or that type of analysis. I proffer the notion that the focus be on the techno side and adjust the fleet size to stay in budget. Russia is a buddy... when the enemy of my enemy is my friend... so who do we both dislike? Our foreign policy activity has to be consistent with our abilities. If we are gonna be the world cop then let us collect "cop tax" to pay for it from all our protectorites.
We have poor here in the US that are forsaken and all sorts of life enhancing issues that fall to the bottom of the list because we spend on guns rather than butter. There can be no comprimise with the lives of our military but, should there be less concern for the lives of our downtrodden?

 

[LeadMagnet]

I want to see a military that can rebuild the world. We can set all our greatest minds to designing a world according to the best of everything we know, from the psychological health of our children to the industrialization of space. That would be some war, one worth dying for maybe.

They did but came to the conclusion that it would be a perfect world if there were no humans

 

[AndrewR]

But, I didn't say we shouldn't have bases overseas to the contrary. I don't say launch from the US, I want to have bases every where as we do. Spend the $ to produce effective tech to obviate the need to send plane in. I see no difference between dropping a smart bomb and launching a smarter missle. Yes I want to cut the fleet because it costs more than my notion. All right keep the subs they serve multi purpose duty but, the bird farms and the aircraft aboard are too expensive. B52's fly near 600knts can reach anywhere faster than a Carrier can even if but 1000 miles away. We are in the techno age. I suggest we need not put anyone in harms way until all the danger is past and then send in the army.. The marines are always the first in and I want them safe.

Ahh CONUS is not a missle based something it be continental US... clears that up for me..

My bigger point is, however, Military earn so little, compared to the job. We are in a this or that economic reality, it seems and I say with all the smarts in DOD and where I worked for awhile (SAIC) the way to go is techno then the march in and occupy after the danger passes... those unmanned drones were wonderfull, I thought. About 100 at each local and the effect of intel and targeting would go up greatly.

I think my way is faster cheaper and safer... our objective is to destroy something during an invasion let it be them and our munitions.

In a way, I don't disagree with you. My recent idea is to have space based missile systems that can retarget and launch a no-notice strike from above with no missile system having any chance of destroying something flying that fast. However, since we can't even launch a few people into space safely, that's not a viable option at the moment (I won't start ranting about NASA in here).

The other problems with remote strikes by manned aircraft are mentioned above by ElFenix. The issue is not really that bombers are in grave danger anymore as many of the weapons keep them out of harm's way, but sortie generation is a huge problem.

However, while I think UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, I think is the break-out) and standoff weapons are great, they cannot entirely substitute for the actions of on-scene aircraft such as the A-10. Many of those standoff weapons rely on "eyes on the ground" for their accuracy at least in obtaining the best targeting points or in decoy discrimination, and we cannot support special ops troops with cruise missiles.

My biggest problem with my own service is that we tend to focus on standoff and pilot safety versus mission effectiveness. Yes, we need to protect our assets, people and planes, but we need to get the job done as well. The next time I hear "Safety First" I am going to hit someone -- it's "Mission First" while keeping safe practices in mind. The Vice Wing Commander here actually said just that awhile back, and it was a welcome change. Part of the problem with not taking the most effective route is that you might not complete the mission, and someone else will have to fly against that same target the next day or hour. That puts double the aircrew in danger and also postpones attacks on other targets.

Even further, the presence of US forces overseas is a stabilizing factor. I would bet any amount of money that if the US were not in Japan, Japan would be remilitarized already and set to take on North Korea. US forces in the Pacific theater have also influenced the actions of China on occasion.

Sorry I am a bit cryptic at times... can't type as fast as I think.. so I'm always catching up.

The biggest problem around here is those who suffer from the opposite problem.

 

[LunarRay]

Andrew,

My biggest problem with my own service is that we tend to focus on standoff and pilot safety versus mission effectiveness. Yes, we need to protect our assets, people and planes, but we need to get the job done as well. The next time I hear "Safety First" I am going to hit someone -- it's "Mission First" while keeping safe practices in mind. The Vice Wing Commander here actually said just that awhile back, and it was a welcome change. Part of the problem with not taking the most effective route is that you might not complete the mission, and someone else will have to fly against that same target the next day or hour. That puts double the aircrew in danger and also postpones attacks on other targets.

***************

I 've to be carefull here...
A person I know well was a marine F-18 jockey. After 10 yrs got out and flew for some airline. After awhile he joined the Air force to fly U2...he is an (O-4) He said just about exactly what you said above.... interesting...!!

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I want to see a military that can rebuild the world. We can set all our greatest minds to designing a world according to the best of everything we know, from the psychological health of our children to the industrialization of space. That would be some war, one worth dying for maybe.

They did... but we kept waking up.

 

[Mister T]

I say increase to 500 billion... I pay over 25K in taxes and the more that goes into defense the better.
Government is to provide for the common defense, not to provide welfare

 

[TallBill]

Raise, so i can get a bigger paycheck/better toys